- (1.) THIS second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 11.8.1995, made in A.S.No,60 of 1994, on the file of the Sub Court, Nagapattinam, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 23.9.1992, made in O.S.No,8 of 1992, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvarur.
(2.) THE plaintiff in the suit, in O.S.No,8 of 1992 is the appellant in the present second appeal. THE defendants in the said suit are the respondents herein. THE suit, in O.S.No,8 of 1992, had been filed by the plaintiff praying for the relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, their men and agents from interfering with the peaceful possession of the plaintiff, in respect of the suit property. The plaintiff had stated that he had purchased the suit property, along with a tiled and a thatched house, bearing Door Nos.48 and 49 in Pulavanallur, under the Nagapattinam Registration District, from one Soundara Raja Pillai and all its appurtenances, with the -Saswatha Paguthi right- over the site, on 13.7.1981, by way of a registered sale deed. The land is owned by Arulmighu Dharmaraja and Draupathi Amman Temple. The plaintiff had executed a paguthi deed, on 27.7.81, in favour of the then trustee of the temple. From the date of the purchase, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. Thereafter, the plaintiff-s name had been entered in the relevant records, for the payment of the property tax. Initially, the suit property was in Ward No.1, which had been later changed as Ward No,2. Before the panchayat elections were held in the year, 1986, the door numbers in the suit property were given as 1/48 and 1/49. However, after the said elections they were renumbered as 2/48 and 2/49. The building, which had existed at the time of purchase of the property, had become dilapidated and it had been destroyed during the recent rains.
(3.) THE plaintiff-s father was running a tailoring shop in the said building. On 30.12.1991, the defendants had tried to forcibly enter into the suit property and they had also attempted to cut the trees therein. THE plaintiff, along with his father, had prevented the attempt made by the defendants. In such circumstances, the plaintiff had preferred the suit, in O.S.No,8 of 1992, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruvarur. In the written statement filed on behalf of the defendant it has been stated that the property is owned by Arulmighu Dharmaraja and Draupathi Amman Temple. The defendants' father was the hereditary trustee of the said temple. After the death of the defendants- father the elder son, Narayanamy Udayar, has been functioning as the trustee and he was administering the temple. About 10 years back when the private temples were brought under the administration of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act, 1959, one Renganathan, Ex-Karnam had been appointed as the fit person. After some time the defendants' father had initiated certain legal proceedings, based on which he became the hereditary trustee.;